@@hazeshi6779 Not really. He was very vocal about his support for the war in Iraq, mainly based off Mahdi Obeidi's book, and its questionable content. (Iraq had centrifuges, but could never get the material for WMD's. This is common knowledge, now.) Hitchens personally seeing the aftermath of Saddam gassing Kurdish people within his country, and finding it vile doesn't match his rhetoric for a full-scale US invasion, which always aligned with the neo-conservative agenda of that time. And he happily took paychecks for airtime on right-wing outlets to emphasize this, for years and years. It wasn't some one-off whoopsie. Smart as he was, he really had little understanding of the middle-east. Even if he was vocally a "Trotskyist," endorsing an overseas war based on intentionally falsified information is completely opposite of that belief system. He was a well-read, incredibly well-spoken drunk, not some arbiter of geopolitical truth. Any current criticism of him doesn't ignore what good journalism he did, but naturally his most recent values will be considered first. Nobody really thinks he was right-wing, they just (accurately) identify that he had little understanding of the middle-east, and actively encouraged the US invading Iraq.
Watching this on the eve of its 40th anniversary of airing. Interesting to see how much is still relevant in terms of topics discussed. Interesting also to listen to Christopher Hitchens discussing those topics. A man of his own convictions, for sure, and one who seemed to be able to back them up.
Hitchens handled the callers questions properly.. requesting clarification as needed. Articulate and well prepared. I don't need to agree with a point of view to admire someone who can change change their views over time and can explain why.. My Dad always said "if you're not a bit liberal when young, you have no soul.. if you don't become a bit more conservative as you get older, you have no brains.. " Barry Goldwater and G.Gordon Liddy understood and could articulate their points as well as Bertrand Russell. Sometimes an interviewer wants to "provoke" a subject or redirect a conversation. William F. Buckley, Barbara Walters, Larry King, Oprah.. many others.. When both the interviewer and the interviewed understand the subject, regardless of their point of view, fun to watch when free flowing with small redirects and most important.. respect for the expression of opinions through a genuine Q&A platform. Be Well!! 😃
Just lovely moments from Hitch. What a shame that sensible call at the end didn’t get a response, despite Hitchens asking to respond. A rare mistake from an otherwise wonderful host.
@@inflamespwn This is true, but it's also a little funny how exasperated yet in control most of the hosts are when they hear a "regular" call in (after lying about where they are in the world in order to skirt the phone screeners). These callers always try to fire off their (usually anti-Semitic) question before they get cut off. Truly unhinged people. That's what happens when you wait around grinding your teeth all day until you get through.
All these people had were the papers and the television media. There was no Internet, no public forums, the only people with cell phones were the rich and elites, and cameras required film that you had to send in to get developed if you didn't have the knowledge and equipment to do it yourself.
Do the callers even realize that journalists, especially ones like Hitchens are not only supposed to report the news, but seek the truth objectively, question the powers that be and be contrarians when necessary? They all seem to want him to fall in line with whatever narrative they want to believe.
Anecdotally, it was common in the 70s and 80s to hear people bemoan reporters who refused to “just stick to the facts”. It seemed to be a sentiment that came more from conservatives…maybe it still is. I don’t think anyone seriously holds facts and opinion to be totally separable anymore, if ever, except in cases of the reporting of immediate dramas, like fires and other violent events. Reporters even a century ago sprinkled cold, hard truth with their own opinions, quite liberally.
That one caller at 48:24 was actually calling for journalists, even the investigative journalists not to report the news but instead to cheerlead for whatever political class happens to be dominant at any time. Actually telling Hitch that the caller thinks it's a big "problem" that the journalists just report the bad stuff and don't do enough cheerleading about everything that is nice and ok and fine. Like he wants his doctor not to tell him that he has a serious health problem, but instead rattle on about how everything else seems healthy and fine.
The caller wasn't trying to pin him down, so there was absolutely no need to be rude and smug. And the fact that he immediately got defensive and uptight speaks volumes. It was a yes or no question. There was no need to attach certain strings to an already reluctant yes.
The year of the boar. Such a young Christopher Hitchens. I believe he had a documentary about the Cyprus conflict between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots around this time.
For very carefully thought out reasons, he saw the difference in context. Hitchens often explained the UN criteria under which a nation forfeits its sovereignty, thus demanding a universal response to protect others from genocide, invasion and terrorism. Iraq transgressed repeatedly. One could argue forever over other factors involved, and why choose this country when others were transgressing as well. Of course nothing is simply black and white, policing all the world all the time is impossible, and international politics are not as pure as the driven snow. But there was nothing hypocritical about the stance Hitchens took on Saddam Hussein. Though one may disagree with it.
@philcawser Too much propaganda regarding Iraq. Everyone and their mother complains about about it and they will until the end of time. Saddam deserved it, iraq deserved it.
Just a few years later, the Cold War ended, without a single death, no nukes exploding, with the dissolution of the USSR. All this happened in spite of, perhaps partly because of, Reagan’s saber rattling. That was a momentous event that changed many minds about a lot of things.
In another CZcams video of Hitchens on Cspan, around the same period in history, had many commenters applauding how enlighetend the callers to the show where, I guess this episode would be showcasing the opposite of that.
This is a time capsule that demonstrates Americans hostility to a free press and how we became supporters of Israel with no regard to the existence of Palestine. .
I knew a med student who was in Grenada then who said absolutely they were in danger and were relieved when the US military showed up. Normally I agree with Hitch but not sure this time.
I don’t think he said they were in zero danger i think he said at that time they didn’t know what was propaganda and what was true because the event had just happened, so he wasn’t sure if the students were in danger. But i agree with you, in hindsight the military intervention definitely saved the students.
Yes and Hitch’s argument was that an intervention would have been justified in the case of the endangerment of the students’ lives, but that this would not have justified the total overthrow of the country’s government. He supported protecting students, but did not support the USA dictating Grenada’s government at gun point.
It was an hour long show, and this record of it is over one minute over. They simply ran out of time. It was not censorship, and I love the irony that you completely missed Christopher's response to this accusation in this very episode. LMFAO
This impotent retort is easily dismissed, with a certain amount of insouciance, under the rubric of ad-hominem attack. Also, you flatter yourself by rendering under the notion of believing I require your endorsement, approval, sanction or commission, which I obviously do not, mainly due to the fact I wouldn't benefit from such a thing. Your opinion hitherto and furthermore is thus floccinaucinihilipilification, and held in regard by you, and you alone.
@@mrgolftennisviolin Such people are, quite ironically, called 'sesquipedalians'. It's when people use language mostly containing very long, multi-syllabic and especially archaic (that means old) words to present themselves as more intelligent than they are. Lawyers (where the language is known as 'legalese'), self-described 'philosophers', and American protestant religious clergy are among the most common offenders (these like to call themselves 'reverend'). In more recent years, this behavior has also been frequently seen among sovereign citizens attempting to use 'legalese' in their dealings with law enforcement. And then there are some people who just like to hear themselves talk in between heavy doses of their own flatulence.
@@Fireholder1 And, predictably, it doesn't make sense: "Your opinion hitherto and furthermore is thus floccinaucinihilipilification" @MattSingh1 wants that to mean "your opinion is worthless" but floccinaucinihilipilification means the act of evaluating something as worthless. So what he said means "your opinion is evaluating things as worthless", which doesn't follow ("thus") from what he said previously. Using big words (sesquipedalian) without understanding them. There should be a word for that too. I only know of phrases such as pretentious pseudointellectual. Unless, as I suspect, they were just joking... :)
@@huwpickering3685 Hitchens was that man who was walking towards the edge of the cliff while all those who were following him didn't realize he was blind (spiritually blind). So sad!
@@huwpickering3685 God/Jesus Christ says his existence is evident in nature (all creation). Man has no excuse to not believe in our almighty Creator God/Christ Jesus. Only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
![Christopher Hitchens on American Politics [V498]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rvmjgw8wxW0/mqdefault.jpg)
Its so strange to be listening to a call in show from 40 years ago largely between dead people. Internet is an incredible thing
I don't know about the callers but Brian Lamb is still alive.
Easy error to make as Brian Lamb is only 8 years older than Christopher who looks like a child.
You gotta love when Hitchens' views confuse callers so much that they call him a right-winger
The modern left see him as a right winger. So not much has changed unfortunately.
@@hazeshi6779 It has, a lot.
It was only ever the callers' own views that confused them, not Christopher's. xD
No, they don't. Someone can be 95% left wing but have a few positions that conservatives prefer, and someone can be criticized on that basis.
@@hazeshi6779 Not really. He was very vocal about his support for the war in Iraq, mainly based off Mahdi Obeidi's book, and its questionable content. (Iraq had centrifuges, but could never get the material for WMD's. This is common knowledge, now.) Hitchens personally seeing the aftermath of Saddam gassing Kurdish people within his country, and finding it vile doesn't match his rhetoric for a full-scale US invasion, which always aligned with the neo-conservative agenda of that time. And he happily took paychecks for airtime on right-wing outlets to emphasize this, for years and years. It wasn't some one-off whoopsie.
Smart as he was, he really had little understanding of the middle-east. Even if he was vocally a "Trotskyist," endorsing an overseas war based on intentionally falsified information is completely opposite of that belief system.
He was a well-read, incredibly well-spoken drunk, not some arbiter of geopolitical truth. Any current criticism of him doesn't ignore what good journalism he did, but naturally his most recent values will be considered first. Nobody really thinks he was right-wing, they just (accurately) identify that he had little understanding of the middle-east, and actively encouraged the US invading Iraq.
Anyone who simplifies the political landscape as “the liberals” and “the conservatives” is missing a great deal of the landscape indeed.
Oldest clip I've seen of Hitch. I was only 7 at the time.
I was -12
I-43. :-) So from-43. !
48:24 - 48:34 last night's booze, this morning's news, and this caller's snooze hittin' Hitch hard
Watching this on the eve of its 40th anniversary of airing. Interesting to see how much is still relevant in terms of topics discussed. Interesting also to listen to Christopher Hitchens discussing those topics. A man of his own convictions, for sure, and one who seemed to be able to back them up.
Hitchens handled the callers questions properly.. requesting clarification as needed. Articulate and well prepared.
I don't need to agree with a point of view to admire someone who can change change their views over time and can explain why..
My Dad always said "if you're not a bit liberal when young, you have no soul.. if you don't become a bit more conservative as you get older, you have no brains.. "
Barry Goldwater and G.Gordon Liddy understood and could articulate their points as well as Bertrand Russell.
Sometimes an interviewer wants to "provoke" a subject or redirect a conversation.
William F. Buckley, Barbara Walters, Larry King, Oprah.. many others..
When both the interviewer and the interviewed understand the subject, regardless of their point of view, fun to watch when free flowing with small redirects and most important.. respect for the expression of opinions through a genuine Q&A platform.
Be Well!! 😃
Been speaking facts before i was born what a legend rest in peace sir!!!
When I lived in France I read the International Herald Tribune and it seemed much more balanced than American newspapers!
50:00 oh to be this sarcastic and cool on TV 🤣😍✌️👍
Just lovely moments from Hitch. What a shame that sensible call at the end didn’t get a response, despite Hitchens asking to respond. A rare mistake from an otherwise wonderful host.
Brian Lamb is true north for quality interviewing
Hitch is so hungover
And yet still savagely smart
Oh my god, all the strange and cringey phone calls. I'm cracking up.
What is it about C-SPAN that attracts the craziest callers?
Retirees thar stay home all day glued to the tv....
these people are level headed compared to call ins these days...
@@inflamespwn This is true, but it's also a little funny how exasperated yet in control most of the hosts are when they hear a "regular" call in (after lying about where they are in the world in order to skirt the phone screeners). These callers always try to fire off their (usually anti-Semitic) question before they get cut off. Truly unhinged people. That's what happens when you wait around grinding your teeth all day until you get through.
All these people had were the papers and the television media.
There was no Internet, no public forums, the only people with cell phones were the rich and elites, and cameras required film that you had to send in to get developed if you didn't have the knowledge and equipment to do it yourself.
Do the callers even realize that journalists, especially ones like Hitchens are not only supposed to report the news, but seek the truth objectively, question the powers that be and be contrarians when necessary? They all seem to want him to fall in line with whatever narrative they want to believe.
Unfortunately most news outlets have given them exactly what they want.
Anecdotally, it was common in the 70s and 80s to hear people bemoan reporters who refused to “just stick to the facts”. It seemed to be a sentiment that came more from conservatives…maybe it still is. I don’t think anyone seriously holds facts and opinion to be totally separable anymore, if ever, except in cases of the reporting of immediate dramas, like fires and other violent events. Reporters even a century ago sprinkled cold, hard truth with their own opinions, quite liberally.
That one caller at 48:24 was actually calling for journalists, even the investigative journalists not to report the news but instead to cheerlead for whatever political class happens to be dominant at any time. Actually telling Hitch that the caller thinks it's a big "problem" that the journalists just report the bad stuff and don't do enough cheerleading about everything that is nice and ok and fine. Like he wants his doctor not to tell him that he has a serious health problem, but instead rattle on about how everything else seems healthy and fine.
Shit he looks young here!
But his voice is the same …
The baggy eyes tho lol
I'm a year older now than he is here very weird
What an amazing thing, that someone should look younger 30 years before his death. xD
I can't believe this was 40 yrs ago!!!😮
It must have been heartbreaking to outlive this kid, years later, after so many meetings in between.
The caller wasn't trying to pin him down, so there was absolutely no need to be rude and smug. And the fact that he immediately got defensive and uptight speaks volumes. It was a yes or no question. There was no need to attach certain strings to an already reluctant yes.
Why do callers pontificate rather than ask questions
I think they believe they are matching wits.
The year of the boar. Such a young Christopher Hitchens. I believe he had a documentary about the Cyprus conflict between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots around this time.
Isn't it crazy that Brian Lamb is only 8 years older than Christopher. He looks so much older!
Decades later, Hitch changed his view of America invading another country
For very carefully thought out reasons, he saw the difference in context. Hitchens often explained the UN criteria under which a nation forfeits its sovereignty, thus demanding a universal response to protect others from genocide, invasion and terrorism. Iraq transgressed repeatedly.
One could argue forever over other factors involved, and why choose this country when others were transgressing as well. Of course nothing is simply black and white, policing all the world all the time is impossible, and international politics are not as pure as the driven snow. But there was nothing hypocritical about the stance Hitchens took on Saddam Hussein. Though one may disagree with it.
@philcawser Too much propaganda regarding Iraq. Everyone and their mother complains about about it and they will until the end of time. Saddam deserved it, iraq deserved it.
I'd be interested in what those defending the Iraq invasion think of Russia's invasion of Ukraine; maybe you'all are OK with that, too?
I changed my mind once or twice
Just a few years later, the Cold War ended, without a single death, no nukes exploding, with the dissolution of the USSR. All this happened in spite of, perhaps partly because of, Reagan’s saber rattling. That was a momentous event that changed many minds about a lot of things.
In another CZcams video of Hitchens on Cspan, around the same period in history, had many commenters applauding how enlighetend the callers to the show where, I guess this episode would be showcasing the opposite of that.
One of his best performances. Hitch the Great
Well, I didn't ask for it, and don't necessarily need it, but thanks for your endorsement all the same.
Hitch could get you off a murder charge if he was a barrister
Christopher looks like a young boy and Brian looks like a young old man.
At the very start of the video, the screen reads "Christopher Hitchins" :o haha
49:00
thank you! exactly what i was looking for
That was hot ngl!
don't spose he ever answered that last caller?
The question @57:00 ?
I think his answer @29:00 covers it don't you?
nope, they didnt let him
"Nigeragalo", what country is that?
He probably meant Nicaragua.
This is what I hear in my head whenever Nicaragua comes up now
Maralago
Ironic that Hitchens named the method U.S. hegemonic policy relies on, decades before the term was coined: military lawfare.
14:06 - 14:23 Andropov died of kidney failure months later, FYI.
This is a time capsule that demonstrates Americans hostility to a free press and how we became supporters of Israel with no regard to the existence of Palestine. .
38:36
I wonder who that is…
I knew a med student who was in Grenada then who said absolutely they were in danger and were relieved when the US military showed up.
Normally I agree with Hitch but not sure this time.
I don’t think he said they were in zero danger i think he said at that time they didn’t know what was propaganda and what was true because the event had just happened, so he wasn’t sure if the students were in danger. But i agree with you, in hindsight the military intervention definitely saved the students.
Yes and Hitch’s argument was that an intervention would have been justified in the case of the endangerment of the students’ lives, but that this would not have justified the total overthrow of the country’s government. He supported protecting students, but did not support the USA dictating Grenada’s government at gun point.
Likely because HE IS young here...
He didn't age well
@@amandalorian105 Paul Newman
What was his answer to the Egyptian?? Wtf? They censored about this shit even then??????
It was an hour long show, and this record of it is over one minute over.
They simply ran out of time.
It was not censorship, and I love the irony that you completely missed Christopher's response to this accusation in this very episode. LMFAO
This impotent retort is easily dismissed, with a certain amount of insouciance, under the rubric of ad-hominem attack. Also, you flatter yourself by rendering under the notion of believing I require your endorsement, approval, sanction or commission, which I obviously do not, mainly due to the fact I wouldn't benefit from such a thing. Your opinion hitherto and furthermore is thus floccinaucinihilipilification, and held in regard by you, and you alone.
floppi what?
agreed
Any chance you’d still be active and able to reply? Because if so, my only question is, dafuq u talkin bout fam?!?!?
@@mrgolftennisviolin
Such people are, quite ironically, called 'sesquipedalians'.
It's when people use language mostly containing very long, multi-syllabic and especially archaic (that means old) words to present themselves as more intelligent than they are.
Lawyers (where the language is known as 'legalese'), self-described 'philosophers', and American protestant religious clergy are among the most common offenders (these like to call themselves 'reverend').
In more recent years, this behavior has also been frequently seen among sovereign citizens attempting to use 'legalese' in their dealings with law enforcement.
And then there are some people who just like to hear themselves talk in between heavy doses of their own flatulence.
@@Fireholder1 And, predictably, it doesn't make sense:
"Your opinion hitherto and furthermore is thus floccinaucinihilipilification"
@MattSingh1 wants that to mean "your opinion is worthless" but floccinaucinihilipilification means the act of evaluating something as worthless. So what he said means "your opinion is evaluating things as worthless", which doesn't follow ("thus") from what he said previously.
Using big words (sesquipedalian) without understanding them. There should be a word for that too. I only know of phrases such as pretentious pseudointellectual.
Unless, as I suspect, they were just joking... :)
Jesus is the King of Glory. So sad that Hitchens didn't know that.
He saw through the lies of Christianity
Grown child
@@huwpickering3685 Hitchens was that man who was walking towards the edge of the cliff while all those who were following him didn't realize he was blind (spiritually blind). So sad!
@@paulgemme6056 prove it
@@huwpickering3685 God/Jesus Christ says his existence is evident in nature (all creation). Man has no excuse to not believe in our almighty Creator God/Christ Jesus. Only a fool says in his heart there is no God.
Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
He never got to answer that last caller
It's unfair I agree that caller was the most morally informed and critically aware